I was chuffed to read Molly Worthen's article in the New York Times about how she wants to start a great books camp for liberals. I sympathize acutely, having watched most of my grad school colleagues journey off to retreats to discuss great books with fellow young conservative/straussian/hayekian intellectuals. (They came back with such great gossip!) And I too wondered, why don't the non-conservatives throw their own book party? (And invite me!) Then eventually it dawned on me: they can't.
All great books camps are conservative (no matter what Yuval Levin says) because they are funded by people who think old books are important, even more important than new ones. This is an essentially conservative argument--studying the great books is a way to conserve certain ideas because you think they are important and perennial. If you are a progressive, even a progressive who is studying the history of political thought, you must acknowledge that new ideas are just as important, if not more so, than old stodgy ones. If they aren't, then what's the point of progress??
Cue a whole chorus of undergrads yelling, "so WHY do we still have to read Plato?!," a question I got more times than I can count. While a progressive can agree we should read Plato, he would also argue we should read everything else important, from Confucius to Rawls to Sayyid Qutb to Ta-Nehesi Coates to....infinity. Worthen includes Obama and MLK on her reading list, but I'm certain those additions would not satisfy. (Remember the controversy over the Trump syllabus? Sigh.)
So while the reading list for progressives could easily grow into the thousands and still not keep everyone happy, conservatives agree that the canon is really just a relatively short list of stuff written by dead white men. No liberal is going to sponsor a reading camp for that, unless they want to be hounded into oblivion. And it's too bad, because dead white men have written a ton of amazing stuff. Including, you know, all the foundational texts of liberal western democracy.
So while I sympathize with Worthen and also dream of starting a great books camp, until either she or I earn enough to pay for it ourselves I think we're going to be disappointed.
Relatedly: what is a person who is neither conservative nor progressive? Is that just a confused person?
All great books camps are conservative (no matter what Yuval Levin says) because they are funded by people who think old books are important, even more important than new ones. This is an essentially conservative argument--studying the great books is a way to conserve certain ideas because you think they are important and perennial. If you are a progressive, even a progressive who is studying the history of political thought, you must acknowledge that new ideas are just as important, if not more so, than old stodgy ones. If they aren't, then what's the point of progress??
Cue a whole chorus of undergrads yelling, "so WHY do we still have to read Plato?!," a question I got more times than I can count. While a progressive can agree we should read Plato, he would also argue we should read everything else important, from Confucius to Rawls to Sayyid Qutb to Ta-Nehesi Coates to....infinity. Worthen includes Obama and MLK on her reading list, but I'm certain those additions would not satisfy. (Remember the controversy over the Trump syllabus? Sigh.)
So while the reading list for progressives could easily grow into the thousands and still not keep everyone happy, conservatives agree that the canon is really just a relatively short list of stuff written by dead white men. No liberal is going to sponsor a reading camp for that, unless they want to be hounded into oblivion. And it's too bad, because dead white men have written a ton of amazing stuff. Including, you know, all the foundational texts of liberal western democracy.
So while I sympathize with Worthen and also dream of starting a great books camp, until either she or I earn enough to pay for it ourselves I think we're going to be disappointed.
Relatedly: what is a person who is neither conservative nor progressive? Is that just a confused person?
3 comments:
Did you see this? http://theweek.com/articles/665446/how-conservatives-outintellectualized-progressives It reminds me of your argument. I think that the answer you're looking for is liberal--which doesn't require progressivism and has a great intellectual tradition (many books from which are taught at these conservative camps because a) libertarians and b) we are all liberals now)
Yes, answer to your question is liberal. Added benefit that it does not require belief in progress b/c of History, to which you claim to be averse.
Also, as Dead White Man Milton Friedman once pointed out, one of the great things about the free market is that you just need to find one rich patron to get your idea off the ground, no matter how niche it is (vs. convincing the entire government in a socialist economy). So you just need to get one rich, contrarian liberal willing to fund a great books camp with a syllabus of all or mostly white men (these days, we're also including some dead black men and dead women on our syllabi, but definitely no living ones).
OK, liberal it is then. I have trouble separating liberal from libertarian or progressive. It seems like a catch-all category these days.
Emily: thanks for the article! I hadn't seen it, but I'm glad to have company in this argument. And he does a better job than me in distinguishing between liberalism and progressivism.
MSI: I will keep looking for my rich contrarian liberal. Maybe that's what Molly Worthen was trying to do in her essay...she basically got a free full page ad for funding in the NYT. Smart.
Post a Comment